next »

[scholarysomething]

Thanks, tinyzombie, this further tells me that avoiding wacakdoodles is key to job satisfaction.

[drnobody]

I think I met a wackadoodle. I finally had a bad interview. I don't mean any others I have had were all GOOD like I got the job, but I have always felt like people wanted me to do well even when they had hard questions. At my interview this week, one of the committee members seemed like he wanted to see if he could tear down my answers and ask me things like why I was not qualified instead of why I was. If he wanted to make sure I didn't want to work there, it worked. I have a FT job I don't have to leave where people treat me well. Yes, I'd LIKE an job in my field, but really, is the market that tough that anyone thinks I want to work with THAT? Because I don't.

So yes, what they all said, the key is wackadoodle avoidance.

[zarea]

I am firmly, emphatically convinced that the majority of academic who work these insane hours are working inefficiently.  (Note: this may not apply to scientists -- working in labs seems to be more time-intensive than for non-lab folks.)  I work on average maybe 25-35 hours per week, but I have made a determined effort to streamline everything I do and I work efficiently. The flexible hours are ridiculously good for childcare -- I don't see how people in 9-5 jobs do it.  I get three months off every summer (not to mention three weeks at Christmas, a week in spring, etc.), and I have wangled travel money so I actually spend two months per year abroad.  I get to hang out and talk to people doing fascinating work, and I get to help some wonderful students at a crucial point in their careers.  The only part I could do without is the unmotivated students, but even then I get to talk about stuff I find fascinating.  A lot of my job (grading, writing articles, course prep) I get to do at my own pace in my own time, in my pajamas if I want to.  I never have to punch a clock; I have no one breathing down my neck.  They pay me to do all this.  I've worked for corporations and I thought I would perish from boredom and frustration.  In this job I'm bored about once a year.   What's not to love?

I agree with everything that you say here and it is the general consensus about having an academic career...but it's only TRUE once you've made it: that is you have the right job, with the right teaching load, enough "travel support" as you mentioned. But the problem is that so many of us are not making it and it's not because we're underqualified. By the time we get a job we're so indebted and the low pay (50k) doesn't justify all the hassle, clowing, being at a zoo jumping ropes that we go through to get the job. This is my case at the moment and academia sucks...unfortunately, often times the people who make it think taht their experience is that of everyone accross the board. not an accusation here but my reading of things on these forums

[zarea]

I'd like to also add that we academics often get caught up in justifying the low pay for the job we do. Yes, we do get a number of privileges that the 9 to 5 people don't get. Most importantly we get to do what we love doing, to be creative without having someone breathing down our neck. But let's be real here, by the time we get that offer between that stands between 50 and 60k (the average, hate to imagine worse) we're already at a stage in our lives where our needs require more (families and such). The worse is that that starting base is not going to double in 10 years except in the few cases of people able to move laterally to R1 private universities.

Yes we're better off than the 9-to 5 workers but they are able to quickly significantly double their start up salary. In some cases, with just enough experience and an additional master's degree, their 40-50k starting salary turns into 100k in 10 years or less. I use data from my college peers and family members to back up this statement. If a study is done however comparing salary increases in academia with the real world, they'll find that even our so called comfort (again, which is only true once you get a Full time job) doesn't justify  the long term loss in salary.
I'd like to add that I didn't become an academic thinking I would get wealthy. I chose this career because I like research first and foremost and my freedom in the workplace. But it sucks when I have to worry about the next pay check.

[polly_mer]

Yes we're better off than the 9-to 5 workers but they are able to quickly significantly double their start up salary. In some cases, with just enough experience and an additional master's degree, their 40-50k starting salary turns into 100k in 10 years or less. I use data from my college peers and family members to back up this statement.

Huh, my college peers and family members don't back up that statement, particularly for those who do only work 9-5.  People who work 60+ hour weeks with a lot of travel do make that kind of money.

At my current lowly pay, I make a bit less than average, but I have a far better job in terms of daily tasks than most of those peers and family members.

Perspective and "normal" matter in these discussions.  People who want to live in particular geographic areas where highly paid people make 70K aren't going to be snotty about "only" making 50K.

Perspective matters.  Oh, and you don't "need" more than 50-60K if you choose a lifestyle commensurate with those earnings.  The problem comes when you want a rich life and have only average earnings.  If you want to be rich, then optimize that richness instead of quality of life.  Sheesh.

[lyndonparker]

Yes we're better off than the 9-to 5 workers but they are able to quickly significantly double their start up salary. In some cases, with just enough experience and an additional master's degree, their 40-50k starting salary turns into 100k in 10 years or less. I use data from my college peers and family members to back up this statement.

Huh, my college peers and family members don't back up that statement, particularly for those who do only work 9-5.  People who work 60+ hour weeks with a lot of travel do make that kind of money.

At my current lowly pay, I make a bit less than average, but I have a far better job in terms of daily tasks than most of those peers and family members.

Perspective and "normal" matter in these discussions.  People who want to live in particular geographic areas where highly paid people make 70K aren't going to be snotty about "only" making 50K.

Perspective matters.  Oh, and you don't "need" more than 50-60K if you choose a lifestyle commensurate with those earnings.  The problem comes when you want a rich life and have only average earnings.  If you want to be rich, then optimize that richness instead of quality of life.  Sheesh.

I think Polly_Mer has it right. Most jobs that pay more than $70,000 per year to newer workers have demands attached that would make most in higher eduction blanch. Balance is a wonderful thing, and not having to scramble each month to make my house payment has a benefit that is immeasurable.